' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---This appeal is filed by appellant Muhammad Jahangir, UDC, National Savings, Rawalpindi, against the impugned order of his dismissal from service dated 25-4-1994.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the appeal, are that the appellant was employed on 20th February, 1976 in National Savings and remained posted at different Centres as UDC. In the year 1986, a case FIR No,37/86 dated 25-9-1986 was registered against the employees of National Savings namely Mr. Tariq Mehmood and Mst. Razia Begum, wherein name of the appellant was not mentioned. However, the appellant was made co-accused by the Investigation Officer. Thereafter, another FIR No,6/87 was registered against the same accused persons, in which appellant was also nominated.
3. Subsequently two other cases under FIR Nos.55/86 and 59/86 were also registered by the FIA at Karachi and are still pending in the court at Karachi. In earlier two cases under FIR Nos.37/86 and 6/87, the appellant was acquitted by the learned Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi vide order dated 10-4-1994 and 26-2-1994 respectively.
4. During the course of proceedings in the Court, departmental proceedings were also taken as a result of that the appellant was dismissed from service on 19-5-1987. Against that order of dismissal, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. His appeal was accepted and the appellant was reinstated vide judgement dated 15-5-1989, passed by this Tribunal in his Appeal No,406(R)/1987.
5. The respondents again re-opened the case and the appellant was again charge-sheeted on 10- 1-1990 and 18-3-1990 on the same allegations. Two separate inquiries were held. No charge was proved against the appellant and appellant was accordingly exonerated by the authorised officer vide order dated 26-7-1992. In spite of exoneration, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice on 28-2-1994 and then dismissed from service vide order dated 25-4-1994. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been punished twice for the same allegation by which he was already exonerated both by the learned Special Judge, Rawalpindi as well as by the Departmental Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the action of removal from service of the appellant is illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction. This is only for the appellant during the course of inquiry and also the trial in the Court, levelled certain charges against the corrupt Official of the Department. Those official became inimical towards the appellant. The appellant has also produced a copy of the Investigation Report dated 12-1-1987 wherein Senior Officers Mr. Abdus Salam Baloch, Joint Director and Mr. Liaquat Mehmood Shaikh, Assistant Director, National Savings were held to be careless and involved in fraud etc. As the appellant had pointed out their names during investigation, they developed grudge against the appellant and, therefore, re-opened the case which was already decided. The appellant prayed that the dismissal order may be set aside and he may please be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
7. The respondents in their comments, have stated that the appellant while working as UDC at National Savings Centre, Rawalpindi, committed embezzlement, fraud and misappropriation of the Government money in collaboration with other employees in Account Nos.NDA-72 and NDA-73 opened by Mr. Misri Khan and Mst. Badrun Nisa, respectively. Appellant with Mr. Tariq Mehmood, ex- UDC and Liaquat Ali, Naib-Qasid was found involved in those cases. Two other cases vide FIR 55/86 and 59/86 are still under trial and pending in Court at Karachi. In an earlier case, before the Federal Service Tribunal, the appellant was charge-sheeted on account of absence from duty without permission and stay at Karachi to assist Other culprit Mr. Tariq Mehmood, ex-UDC in fraudulent encashment of forged accounts and certificates from Karachi. The respondents contended that the appellant was not charged on the same allegation but in the second charge-sheet he was charged on account of encashment of National Deposit Account Nos.72 and 73 at National Savings Centre, Rawalpindi. However, in both the cases the appellant was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer but the Authority, in exercise of the powers under Rule 6-A of (E & D) Rules, called for the record of the case and pass order for de novo proceedings after due consideration. The Authority, after considering all aspects of the case, found the appellant guilty as charged in both the cases and, therefore, imposed major penalty of dismissal from service. The decision of the authority has not resulted into miscarriage of justice as claimed by the appellant.
8. We have heard both the parties and perused the record,. It is admitted fact that cases registered under FIRs 55/86 and 59/86 are still pending in the Court at Karachi. Therefore, the appellant could not be held responsible/guilty in those cases unless finally decided by the Court. As regards other two cases under FIRs 37/86 and 6/87, the appellant has already been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer which is also admitted by the respondents in their comments. It is also evident from the enquiry report dated 26-9-1991 that the charges with regard to having joined hands with other accused viz. Mr. Tariq Mehmood, ex-UDC and Mst. Razia Begum to utilize the service of Mr. Liaquat Ali, NaibQasid, and thus committed the act of forgery and fraud, was not proved against the appellant. Further, in Enquiry Report dated 16-11-1991 with regard to charge of fraudulent withdrawal in Account Nos.72 and 73, was also not proved against the appellant. Another Investigation Report in connection with fraud in above two cases i.e, NAD-72 and NAD-73, on the file, reveals that some higher Officers/other Officials were also held responsible for commission of fraud and foul play. The contention of the appellant seems to be correct for involving him with mala fide intention as those Officials/Officers were pointed out by the appellant during the investigation and thus they developed grudge against the appellant. Moreover, the appellant was firstly charge-sheeted on 10-1-1990 and 18-3-1990 on account of fraud and misappropriation in the abovementioned cases but he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Authorised Officer. Therefore, issuance of show-cause notice on 28-2-1994 and de novo proceedings on the same charges much after a long delay, is illegal, unjustified and against the canon of justice. The appellant could not be punished twice for the same charges. Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides: No person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once". None shall be vexed twice for one and the same cause. Reliance is placed on PLD 1973 Lah.
188 and 1989 SCMR 1224.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 25-4-1994. Consequently the appellant is reinstated in service with all back benefits.
10. No order as to costs.